Or at the very least, we (and by "we" I mean "I personally") enjoy making snide comments about Skid Row's continued slide into irrelevancy.

_________________""We would absolutely love to put out a new record and get lumped in with all of the other '80s bands out there that still record and put out records that nobody really buys." - Jeff LaBar, CINDERELLA

I was supposed to see them with Tony Harnell back in December but the show (with Great White opening) was postponed due to illness. The show has been rescheduled but I really don't know if I'll go at this point (even with scab GW opening).

The reason I posted the "Nobody Cares" meme, aside from the fact that it's funny, was that IMO Skid Row were never THAT big. They had a peak w/ Slave where they headlined some arenas, but that's it. Poison, even Warrant, were way bigger than Skid Row. "Nobody Cares" was a comment on the fact that, when it comes to seeing them live, nobody cares who's singing as long as the audience can hear the songs they want to hear. Journey has proven that with Arnel. It's the songs, not the singer.

Whether anyone cares about Skid Row now or not, aside from that question, I'm not sure I'd classify Skid Row as "never THAT big".

From memory, they dominated things like Dial MTV for weeks and months any time a new video dropped. By the time "18 and Life" came out, I'd say they were near as big as any of their contemporaries. I don't know about headlining arenas, but as far as fans and sales went, they were easily almost as big. A quick look at wiki tells me their debut went 5x platinum and peaked at #6 on Billboard (no idea what goes into their criteria though). The first 2 Warrant albums, Wiki doesn't specify record sales as far as platinum whatever, but DRFSR peaked at 10 and Cherry Pie at 7. So....you know. Others like Poison and Bon Jovi sold more for sure. But I just think it's a little weird to say they weren't that big.

Also, if no one in the world cared about Skid Row in 2016, and their releases sold 0 copies, the only time a band should move on is if they themselves no longer want to do it any more. I mean, unless they're only in it for the money. I'd wager most musicians on this forum are not only in this for the money.

To top things off, SR are doing things exactly the way they want to. Many bands would've done the fan service thing and reunited with the original singer and made a spectacle out of it if given the chance, for the ticket sales and whatever. I'm not a big fan of their recent releases (though the 2 EPs are better than those full lengths they did in the first part of the millennium, but these dudes have, thus far, stuck to their guns.

From memory, they dominated things like Dial MTV for weeks and months any time a new video dropped. By the time "18 and Life" came out, I'd say they were near as big as any of their contemporaries. I don't know about headlining arenas, but as far as fans and sales went, they were easily almost as big. A quick look at wiki tells me their debut went 5x platinum and peaked at #6 on Billboard (no idea what goes into their criteria though). The first 2 Warrant albums, Wiki doesn't specify record sales as far as platinum whatever, but DRFSR peaked at 10 and Cherry Pie at 7. So....you know. Others like Poison and Bon Jovi sold more for sure. But I just think it's a little weird to say they weren't that big.

Dial MTV was rigged...everyone knows it. Record companies paid people to call in and vote. Look it up.

Chart positions are one thing, headlining tours are another. Warrant headlined arenas longer than SR did. Neither were a Ratt or Bon Jovi, mind you. Those bands headlined arenas for years at a stretch. "Never THAT big", in relation to the scene they're from, is accurate.

SR can do whatever they want. But, nobody cares at this point who the singer is...my point stands.

The last time I saw Skid Row was at the Convention Center in Sacramento. 2,500 seats and it was with a number one album "Slave To The Grind" and Pantera opening. I dig Skid Row with Bach, but Shawn does have a valid point.

Very well put, Zombie. I agree that SR were one of the bigger acts and they peaked at about the same time all of their contemporaries peaked in the early '90's.

I have no dog in this fight as I am a casual fan of SR at best ( have the first few albums and saw them open for Jovi in '86) but will always read and comment in a post regarding them. I actually give the band a lot of credit for not "giving in" to the fan club and getting back with Bach and going in another direction. They are, unfortunately, in a no win position as those longtime fans will always be hyper critical of every move and wishing for the glory days of the original line up; and the casual fans or detractors will hate on them or yell "cash grab" like they do for G'N R.

From memory, they dominated things like Dial MTV for weeks and months any time a new video dropped. By the time "18 and Life" came out, I'd say they were near as big as any of their contemporaries. I don't know about headlining arenas, but as far as fans and sales went, they were easily almost as big. A quick look at wiki tells me their debut went 5x platinum and peaked at #6 on Billboard (no idea what goes into their criteria though). The first 2 Warrant albums, Wiki doesn't specify record sales as far as platinum whatever, but DRFSR peaked at 10 and Cherry Pie at 7. So....you know. Others like Poison and Bon Jovi sold more for sure. But I just think it's a little weird to say they weren't that big.

Dial MTV was rigged...everyone knows it. Record companies paid people to call in and vote. Look it up.

Chart positions are one thing, headlining tours are another. Warrant headlined arenas longer than SR did. Neither were a Ratt or Bon Jovi, mind you. Those bands headlined arenas for years at a stretch. "Never THAT big", in relation to the scene they're from, is accurate.

SR can do whatever they want. But, nobody cares at this point who the singer is...my point stands.

I did not know that about Dial MTV...ha, that is a life-changing fact. Not really. But agreeing to disagree on how big Skid Row was...I can't really argue revisionist history based on your personal opinion of a band.

From memory, they dominated things like Dial MTV for weeks and months any time a new video dropped. By the time "18 and Life" came out, I'd say they were near as big as any of their contemporaries. I don't know about headlining arenas, but as far as fans and sales went, they were easily almost as big. A quick look at wiki tells me their debut went 5x platinum and peaked at #6 on Billboard (no idea what goes into their criteria though). The first 2 Warrant albums, Wiki doesn't specify record sales as far as platinum whatever, but DRFSR peaked at 10 and Cherry Pie at 7. So....you know. Others like Poison and Bon Jovi sold more for sure. But I just think it's a little weird to say they weren't that big.

Dial MTV was rigged...everyone knows it. Record companies paid people to call in and vote. Look it up.

Chart positions are one thing, headlining tours are another. Warrant headlined arenas longer than SR did. Neither were a Ratt or Bon Jovi, mind you. Those bands headlined arenas for years at a stretch. "Never THAT big", in relation to the scene they're from, is accurate.

SR can do whatever they want. But, nobody cares at this point who the singer is...my point stands.

I did not know that about Dial MTV...ha, that is a life-changing fact. Not really. But agreeing to disagree on how big Skid Row was...I can't really argue revisionist history based on your personal opinion of a band.

Revisionist history, my ass. I was there. I lived that era. I remember it. I LOVE the 3 SR albums w/ Bach.

PROOF that "nobody cares" who sings for them now is in the FACT that they keep touring and drawing crowds DESPITE not having the original singer. Same with Journey, or Foreigner, or any other band that has a different singer...it's the songs people want to hear and as long as they get to hear them, anyone can be singing them. It's the very same reason people go see tribute bands.

Revisionist history, my ass. I was there. I lived that era. I remember it. I LOVE the 3 SR albums w/ Bach.

PROOF that "nobody cares" who sings for them now is in the FACT that they keep touring and drawing crowds DESPITE not having the original singer. Same with Journey, or Foreigner, or any other band that has a different singer...it's the songs people want to hear and as long as they get to hear them, anyone can be singing them. It's the very same reason people go see tribute bands.

I am not even arguing that no one cares who sings for them. I agree with that. I think they'd sell more tickets if Bach was with them, but yes, by and large, people who want to see Skid Row still go see Skid Row, no matter who is singing the songs. No disagreement there. And your point about no one caring who sings for them is way different than the argument several others are making that no one cares about Skid Row AT ALL. So we are not even disagreeing there.

The only point of yours I'm arguing is your statement that they were never that big. Once "18 and Life" dropped, yes, they were that big. Whether anyone cares about anything or not now or who's in the band now...in 1989-1991 or whatever exact years, they were that big.

Skid Row were never THAT big. They had a peak w/ Slave where they headlined some arenas, but that's it. Poison, even Warrant, were way bigger than Skid Row.

James wrote:

The last time I saw Skid Row was at the Convention Center in Sacramento. 2,500 seats and it was with a number one album "Slave To The Grind" and Pantera opening. I dig Skid Row with Bach, but Shawn does have a valid point.

Speaking as someone else who was "there" during that era, I'm with Shawn and James B. on this. Skid Row were simply not that big.

I'm not arguing the fact that Skid Row did indeed have their "fifteen minutes of fame," esp. between 89-91. However, they were still "B" listers at best. Even at their "18 & Life" height they weren't selling out Enormo-Domes on their own, they were opening for Aerosmith and other bands.

I always felt that Skid Row's fate was similar to Dokken's - who probably would've achieved bigtime headliner status if they'd put their personal sh*t aside long enough to do one more album. Dokken had also been a perennial opening act (although they were popular in their own right) right up thru Back For the Attack. Who knows, their next record might've pushed them over the top to headlining status on their own but they couldn't hold it together.

Skid Row's situation may have been similar, but time was simply not on their side. Even as Slave to the Grind opened at #1 on Billboard the hourglass was already running out on the hair-metal genre, and by early 1992, nobody gave a f*ck about Skid Row anymore. When they took Vulgar Display-era Pantera out with them on the Slave tour, Pantera were the ones selling the tickets.

I can remember walking into Tower Records around that time, seeing sh*t tons of copies of Slave to the Grind in their cut-out bin, and thinking "Wow, that was quick," cuz it had been maybe a year since its release... if that. And this was an album that had been at #1 on Billboard!!

It was like Quiet Riot all over again. Top of the world one year, to nowheres-ville the next.

_________________""We would absolutely love to put out a new record and get lumped in with all of the other '80s bands out there that still record and put out records that nobody really buys." - Jeff LaBar, CINDERELLA

The only point of yours I'm arguing is your statement that they were never that big. Once "18 and Life" dropped, yes, they were that big. Whether anyone cares about anything or not now or who's in the band now...in 1989-1991 or whatever exact years, they were that big.

They were big for a quick flash of a minute. "18 & Life" did not get them out of opening act status, despite being an MTV hit. They were much bigger once Slave came out and headlined their own tour, but only some of those shows were in arenas...most of them were in theaters. They had a #1 album w/ Slave, but they did not have the arena-filling level of sustained success that other bands of that era did. Period. You trying to school me is hilarious.

I'm not trying to "school" you on anything, weirdo. As I've mentioned in many threads, many times, when people start to get weird: I enjoy talking about music, especially when people disagree on stuff.

I am still not convinced anyway. You being an 18-year-old certified rock and roll expert that was living it, that doesn't convince me of anything. And anyway, I take back the revisionist history comment. I think you and I just have wildly different criteria for what level makes a band THAT big.

I'm not trying to "school" you on anything, weirdo. As I've mentioned in many threads, many times, when people start to get weird: I enjoy talking about music, especially when people disagree on stuff.

I am still not convinced anyway. You being an 18-year-old certified rock and roll expert that was living it, that doesn't convince me of anything. And anyway, I take back the revisionist history comment. I think you and I just have wildly different criteria for what level makes a band THAT big.

I've just run into so many people who are considerably younger than I am (yes, 7 years is a big gap when it comes to eras of music), that try to tell me "how it was". That's how all your comments felt.

Yes, SR was on the radio. Yes, SR was on MTV. Yes, SR sold a bunch of records. BUT, they were barely situated above arena-opening act status. They could headline theaters and a couple of arenas on ONE tour. They were not as big as a Crue, or a Ratt, or a Bon Jovi, or even a Cinderella, all of whom headlined arenas on multiple tours over the course of years. Had SR come out 5 years earlier, it could have been a MUCH different story, but they didn't...and it's not.

I was aged 11 in 1989 and 13 in 1991 and fully immersed in what people now insultingly call hair metal. I did not hang out on the Sunset Strip. But as far as being a middle class suburban fan of the music, as most people were who listened to these bands, versus getting wild on the Sunset Strip with them...I mean, yeah, I'm not going to defer to you.

But I will concede on one point and that is I've never really thought about a band's success as being tied to touring and how they are situated in said tours. And maybe that is wrong...maybe from a band/musician's eyes that is where all that stuff hinges. In that respect, I am sure you are right.

Still not going to concede on the idea that they were not that big at the time, even if they were not the headliner. I certainly never claimed they were as big as the heaviest hitters from that genre. They definitely hit basically at the last possible moment that a band could hit and blow up, versus the bands that came out between 81 and 86, no question on that.

It's funny because I don't even care about Skid Row now, aside from loving the first two albums. But since I disagree with something that was said a few times, it compelled me to reply.

Not trying to drag this thread off on yet another tangent, but I don't get why people consider the term "hair metal" a slur. Shoot, I call it "hair metal" all the time ... and I'm a fan of the genre. (shrugs)

Lord knows, there were many other names for it back then that were way worse..."glam f*gs," "butt rock," etc.

_________________""We would absolutely love to put out a new record and get lumped in with all of the other '80s bands out there that still record and put out records that nobody really buys." - Jeff LaBar, CINDERELLA

I've never understood why people consider the term "hair metal" a slur. I call it "hair metal" all the time ... and I'm a fan of the genre. (shrugs)

There were many other names for it back then that were way worse..."glam f*gs," "butt rock," etc.

Yes those terms are definitely worse.

The term always comes across as diminutive to me. Especially since it's often preceded by words like "cheesy" (much of it is, for sure) or "crappy" or "shitty" or whatever.I don't know, I don't really care what people call it, but I always like to clarify when I use it that it's not meant to diminish the actual music.

I do think that Skid Row had a much higher profile in the mainstream media than a band like Warrant. I only say that because Skid Row was on the cover of Rolling Stone and on SNL. However, I think that was due to Sebastian Bach's looks. I mean, look at what picture was on Rolling Stone:

I do agree that his looks were quite a factor in the amount of magazine coverage they got. Doing a google search for skid row magazine shows soooooo many mag covers that are just him, shirtless or near shirtless. Ha.

Kinda like the dude version of that No Doubt video. Don't Speak, I think it was?

I was aged 11 in 1989 and 13 in 1991 and fully immersed in what people now insultingly call hair metal.

With respect, there's a big difference between that and being 18 & 20, playing in bands, buying albums, and going to shows. I'm not saying you were not a fan, I'm sure you were. I'm just saying that perspectives are vastly different between those ages.

I was aged 11 in 1989 and 13 in 1991 and fully immersed in what people now insultingly call hair metal.

With respect, there's a big difference between that and being 18 & 20, playing in bands, buying albums, and going to shows. I'm not saying you were not a fan, I'm sure you were. I'm just saying that perspectives are vastly different between those ages.

I agree with that. But in response to the idea that I was trying to tell you how it was, I wasn't trying to tell you how it was but I am not going to just defer to you on the subject because you have 7 years on me. If I were born in 1989 or something, sure, or just somehow discovered the genre 2 years ago.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything, but, aside from the tours, as I conceded, evidence and memory and my own perspective (which can all be flawed, surely) tell me otherwise.

I also feel like we are splitting hairs. I do not think you are maintaining that Skid Row was a commercial failure and I have never claimed they were as successful as Poison, Crue or Bon Jovi. So wherever that leaves us in the middle I don't know.

I do think that Skid Row had a much higher profile in the mainstream media than a band like Warrant. I only say that because Skid Row was on the cover of Rolling Stone and on SNL. However, I think that was due to Sebastian Bach's looks.

They were also making headlines as the new "bad boys". Remember Bach's bottle throwing incident and the AIDS t-shirt? Warrant (and their ilk) looked much more tame in comparison.

_________________I used to be with it, but then they changed what "it" was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary to me, and it'll happen to you, too.